People v. Harrington

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 1955Published

Before: Shaw, P

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while it was error to exclude the defendant's explanation for her failure to testify, the error was not prejudicial given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Additionally, the court affirmed that trial judges should not engage in the Socratic method of pre-instructing jurors on points of law during voir dire.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its voir dire examination of prospective jurors regarding points of law.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence explaining the defendant's failure to testify on the merits of the case.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Prospective jurors should not be asked questions of law.”

“It is not the province of counsel on voir dire examination of prospective jurors to attempt to instruct them on matters of law.”

“Although it was error to exclude defendant's explanation of her failure to testify as to the merits of the case, it is impossible to believe that it was prejudicial”

138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 902 (1955) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

VONCELE OLIVE HARRINGTON, Appellant.

California Court of Appeals.

Dec. 22, 1955. Sam Houston Allen for Appellant.

Byron B. Gentry, City Prosecutor (Pasadena), for Respondent.

Before Shaw, P. J., Bishop, J., and Swain, J.

THE COURT.

The defendant was convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 502, driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. She appeals from "the judgment" and the order granting probation on two grounds: (1) error in the court's voir dire examination of jurors, and (2) that the court wrongfully sustained objections when she offered evidence to explain why she did not testify to the merits of the case. There is no judgment because sentence was not pronounced.

The voir dire examination of jurors was largely devoted to questions of law asked by the court and counsel and to an [138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 904] attempt by the court to preinstruct the prospective jurors on points of law. In that connection, we deem it worthwhile to state several principles. [1] (1) Knowledge of the law is not one of the qualifications for jury duty. [2] Prospective jurors should not be asked questions of law. [3] (2) "It is not the province of counsel on voir dire examination of prospective jurors to attempt to instruct them on matters of law." (People v. Jefferson (1948), 84 Cal.App.2d 709, 711 [191 P.2d 487].) [4] The trial court may properly sustain objections to such questions. (People v. Spraic (1927), 87 Cal.App. 724 [262 P. 795]; People v. Tibbetts (1929), 102 Cal.App. 787 [283 P. 830]; State v. Bauer (1933), 189 Minn. 280 [249 N.W. 40], and the many excellent cases cited therein.) [5] (3) There is no doubt that the court has the right and the duty to instruct the jury on the law and that it may regulate the order of proceedings in a trial, but it is also the duty of the court to expedite the trial. [6] Time should not be consumed by asking questions which throw no light on the qualification of the jurors, whether those questions are asked by the court or by counsel. This statement in People v. Semone (1934), 140 Cal.App. 318, 326 [35 P.2d 379], applies equally to questions by the court and by counsel: "It is not only the privilege but it is also the duty of the court to restrict the examination of jurors within reasonable bounds so as to expedite the trial."

People v. Harrington

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief